Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2016.

Canadia (thing)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect of no value at all - ambiguous, and appropriate to none of the entries on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No things on the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thing is a dab, and can mean any.... you know, what. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just not helpful and not useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a remnant of what looks like a series of non-constuctive edits from June 2006. The thing bit referred to the fossils of Canadia (genus) species, and it kind of made some sort of sense as fossils are things, aren't they? Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jihyangmountaininfo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created when the article was originally translated from Korean. It is meaningless and can only cause confusion. It has not been around for very long. My Gussie (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC) (added) My Gussie (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be an invented term, a quick Google for this reveals nothing but other websites who mirror Wikipedia. Thus it has been proven harmful already. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like unhelpful nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List field

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to be referring to a subject called a "List Field" as referenced in this revision of Lists (jousting). However, this information seems to be absent from the target article, making these redirects misleading in their current state due to failing to lead the reader to information about the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it possible to add a brief mention of it, considering that's what the jousting field is called? [1] [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List field, and delete List (jousting). One is a plausible search term, the other is not. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "List field" and delete the rest since the former is a valid technical term related to jousting (besides the above links, there's also other sources such as this) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I added some old text back in at the target, with a new ref, explaining the term. I don't see the term "list field" used much in sources, but "list" and "lists" are both common. — Gorthian (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. List and lists are common jousting terminology, so are plausible searches. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lists about Mr. Burns

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such list of lists exists at the target article. However, this redirect has history as an article, but it doesn't look like it would survive an WP:AFD if it were an article. So, delete or restore article, then send to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • List contributors on Talk:Mr. Burns and delete per nom. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did any content get merged? Why would we need to do that? --BDD (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current target article has information in prose that equates to items on the list. WP:CHEAP, and entirely valid redirect and probable, but barely, search query..--Prisencolin (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, the choose-your-own-article. We give you the raw materials, but you have to assemble it yourself... --BDD (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unused and misleading. — Gorthian (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Boo! Boo! (Nope, not Boo-urns) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Evry1 & Ery1

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These variations of the word are not listed at the target (a disambiguation page), so readers looking up these terms to find subjects with titles with these unique stylizations will be misled due to not finding any applicable subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evry1 can be a very vaguely plausible misspelling of the common name of MBC Every 1, or an SMS shorthand for everyone, in which case it could point to either a list of such terms, or possibly the dab page at Everyone. Any of these are pretty weak on their own, and put together they only get strong enough for WP:XY. Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, MOS:ABBR applies to text in articles, not to redirects. Redirects can, but they do NOT need to be notable, they just need to be helpful in some way. (NB. In some cases, redirects which happen to be notable as well may be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}.) Please review WP:REDIR for the purposes of redirects, and when they should be deleted or kept.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Evry1", but I'm unsure about what to do with "Ery1" since I'm seeing "ERY1" possibly referenced as a notable chemical compound. Take a look here and also here. I'll admit that, while I have some understanding of chemistry, I don't know where this specific kind of a "glycophorin A–binding peptide" would be described exactly. We do have an article on "Glycophorin A", the target of the ERY1 binding substance, but it's not mentioned there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (at least "Evry1"). Not that I personally would care much about these two abbreviations, but per WP:REDIR one of the purposes of redirects is to redirect from abbreviations and shortcuts to the corresponding article. I'm not into SMS style communication, but if these shortcuts are used in SMS or similar short communication (and apparently they are, otherwise no editor would have created these forwards), then these redirects are convenient and helpful in guiding a reader to the corresponding topic. They thereby serve one of the purposes for redirects defined in WP:REDIR and are wanted unless one of reasons to delete them per WP:R#DELETE would apply (which, however, is not the case here). In order to ensure that they will be used for searches only and to keep editors from using them in article links, we could add {{R from misspelling}} to them.
Regarding "Ery1" I'm not sure. If this really refers to a chemical compound, as pointed out above, we should retarget this to the corresponding article. If this is also used in SMS style short communication we might even need to disambiguate this abbreviation.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone discuss things with the people at Wikiprojects related to biology and chemistry? Bring them into the conversation? "Ery1" and "ERY1" being possibly retargeted to an arcane chemical compound's page is a move that we should have experts look at. (Personally, even though I did well enough in chemistry at an academic level to the point of earning an A.S. in the subject, just a few years ago, my grasp of advanced organic chemistry is rusty at best. This is neither here nor there, though.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. There is no page in article space that uses either of these terms, nothing on chemicals, nothing on texting, nothing on enzymes. There just isn't any place to retarget them. And they get almost no use. — Gorthian (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Every man jack

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the redirect's target is a disambiguation page that isn't a match or a punctuation variation of the redirect, the redirect pointing there is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Wiktionary. Searches are resulting in a cosmetics brand, which is debatable for notability. [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete. WP:NOTDIC. if we are going to redirect everything in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable to Wiktionary, all we are doing is shifting pillar to post. Oh let's have pillar to post because we know what a pillar is and what a post is. Nope, nope, it is not even for Wiktionary, it is to be deleted. People can get books of idioms if they want them, language learners tend to get them quite frequently to learn the idioms of foreign languages, so if you don't know your own, consult your nearest bookshop. WP:NOTDIC, WP:NOT a phrasebook. No internal links, stats over 90 days are less than 1 in three days, well below bot noise level. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my job to regurgitate stuff and would be CC-VIO if I did and OR and whatnot. My job is to take people where they want to go. "jack" is an interesting word that means pretty much anything, as you can see from the DAB at jack which is hardly complete. You have a bootjack, a steeplejack, a chimneyjack, a jackboot, a jack-of-all-trades, who ain't worth jack split, Jack Horner over there in the corner, a trolley jack, a lumberjack,, Monterey Jack, jack of diamonds, and every man jack. What other kinda jack you want? you have Jack Lemmon, Jack shit, Jack the bloke who played in those films sometimes, you remember, it was late and in black and white, Jack-o'-lantern (one of the best members of the O'Lantern family, would light the room up just by coming in).
Not to put too fine a point on it, before you want "every man jack", start to try to enumerate all the "jacks" you might mean. Once you have that infinte set, try to pare it down. When you have done so, add them to the DAB at Jack. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Si. Sounds like you've got a good start on the everybody primary-topic article. ;-) I wanted to tell you that the new page-stats tool excludes bots by default, so whatever hits you see are from Real Users®. — Gorthian (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kathak Dancing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Kathak - Prisencolin (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Annie Bonar Law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27#Annie Bonar Law

All About the Celebrity World

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a book or film? I don't see it in the searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All by Myself(Grey's Anatomy)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. Also, the version of this title with a space, All by Myself (Grey's Anatomy), already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All about ... redirects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirects since they are not alternate titles for their respective targets and since Wikipedia is a work in progress. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All About Hawaii is a 1960s-later used alternate title for Thrum's Hawaiian Annual, no idea why I didn't capitalize the a. It's just a redirect so I'm not losing sleep either way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kintetsubuffalo: Fair enough. I was a bit confused regarding that redirect anyways since it didn't target Hawaii. I'm going to withdraw that one and add the alternative title to the target. If I somehow fail to get around to that, feel free to update the target article with that information. (In other news, I'm having a bit of an issue finding a reference to prove this is an alternate title, though I would believe the connection to be true.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kintetsubuffalo: Ah, it's on the image used on the article to identify the subject. I'll be adding the information to the article shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a book series called All About? It's a weird selection of topics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a Children's science DVD series called "All About". See, e.g., [5]. That means these shouldn't redirect to general topics, but should be redlinks waiting for someone to write an article about the DVDs. —hike395 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These mostly seem to be mistakes. Just delete them please. W Nowicki (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. AngusWOOF, there used to be a series of "All About" books, long ago. I devoured them voraciously as a child; I especially liked All About Volcanoes and Earthquakes. But..."All about Buffy"? I don't think so. — Gorthian (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC) ...Ha! Found it. Good ol' eBay. — Gorthian (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete all. These titles really fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". We have All About Eve (and All About Adam) but we don't have All About Nuclear Physics redirecting to Nuclear physics. For if not let's redirect All About France to France and All About Germany to Germany. If these are notable books and DVDs, articles can be written about them, and if not, not. One thing we can teach the kiddiwinks is how to look up entries in an encylopaedia, everything is not listed under "All about" (nor under "The"). Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All=Ireland Senior Hurling Final

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "=" makes this an unlikely typo. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it makes a very likely typo, I don't know about your keyboard but on several of mine the = is shift plus the - and an easy slip. (My US keyoard has htat, my UK keyboard has that, my HU and Belgian French keyboards don't: yes I know about keyboard mappings). Nevertheless, this is entirely redundant as the most likely thing is that someone is doing a WP:PTM and so this is entirely unnecessary; one of the jobs, I have felt, since the search engine has got a bit better over the years, is to delete redundant Rs to let it work better. That is our kinda syncopy, and sometimes deleting things makes it better. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure if this is a likely typo. Even if it might be typed in by a few people, though, the fact that an equals sign is not used in the word is frankly pretty obvious. I'm also leaning to just deleting this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

S truman

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PTM (with president precedent) since Harry S. Truman is never referred to by his middle + last name. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To save others the trouble: we don't have anyone at Truman (surname) whose first name begins with an S. Even then, you'd expect the form S. Truman. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am going to state the bleeding obvious because I have a feeling User:Tavix or User:BDD is trying to lead someone up a dark alley, and leave them there, but the "S" in Harry S Truman stands for "S", is not an abbreviation, and thus should not have the fullstop/period after it anyway: but I have argued this before and lost, and I imagine many others have too. The general consensus is that we don't tend to redirect on middle names like this – who would search this way, and if they did, who would expect to find this target? I have been called or put on forms as "S Truman" many times but that does not make me notable when people can't spell Trew (er, try the middle of QWERTY)? In Hungary I am mostly called Trev. And I always thought "Simon" was bad". No wonder he changed his name to Saint Paul. S Truman (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Harry_S._Truman#cite_note-4 where the debate over whether it should be "S. Truman" or "S Truman" is explained. PTM doesn't apply here, because the primary topic of this search term isn't the president, but the debate over the proper punctuation of his name. Would support creating S. Truman to the same target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:QXZ

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Cross-namespace redirect that has gone almost entirely unused since its creation in 2012 and does little but pollute the Wikipedia namespace. "QXZ" derives from Qxz, an alt account in 2007 of Gurch, who created the ad template images. The redirect came up for discussion in a poorly-attended RfD in 2013. In that its creator noted that it was little-used, which continues to be true, because the template has two more logical shortcuts. (Which are also both CNRs, but it seems too late to do anything about those.) I've pinged him/her for this but it seems unlikely we'll hear anything as he/she's not edited in 9 months.  — Scott • talk 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm wary of retaining these kinds of links that we know will confuse people. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's certainly not intuitive, but this redirect gets more hits than one of the "official" ones, so it is in use. Calling it "pollution" is inapt. — Gorthian (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you looking at the same stats that I do? WP:BANNER gets more hits than this title. And either gets about the same number that I remember the infamous CSD: redirects getting after they were deleted. Few will notice either gone, I think. —Keφr 18:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you click on the link I gave, we'll be looking at the same stats. — Gorthian (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kephir is right - what you're saying doesn't reflect the content of the link you gave. WP:BANNER sees 50-100% more traffic (all of 2 or 3 hits) on almost every day in that comparison.  — Scott • talk 13:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no, I said that it gets more hits than one of the "official" ones, meaning WP:WPADS, Maybe this is clearer. (I was noting the totals at the bottom.)— Gorthian (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, "Wikipedia:" → "Template:" redirects are actually probably the least harmful CNRs of all, and sometimes they even make some sense. It is cross-namespace redirects out of the main namespace that are the most problematic. But I am hardly attached to this shortcut; delete it for all I care. —Keφr 18:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The use of "qxz" is shown in Template:Wikipedia ads/doc#Hiding the ads, but I'm leaning "delete" per the nominator's statement. Since the "QXZ" term is specific to the user who created the parameters regarding the functionally of the ad functions via commons.css and not any type of technical term otherwise, if the technical way to hide ads could be updated to make the "qxz" usage obsolete, then the connection could be deprecated. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete virtually linked from nowhere, deletion won't be harmful, little used term whose origins are disputed. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Municipal Electricity Authority

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion, since redirect was a result of the target page being created at the wrong title, which is pretty much an implausible misnomer. Paul_012 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paul 012: This is really a WP:G7 case. You don't have to bring it here. — Gorthian (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{R from incorrect name}}. Misnomers used in print [6] should generally be considered plausible search terms. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't "municipal electricity authority" (without caps) more often be a generic term referring to municipality-owned electric utilities though? Having the redirect point to Thailand's MEA might derail users looking for something else. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the guy show screwed up the title. Is the issue whether to move the article to its proper name, "Municipal Electricity Authority"? Would it be simpler if we just removed the article entirely, I renamed it properly, and re-posted it? Seligne (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably another typo. I'd already moved the article to Metropolitan Electricity Authority, which is the correct title. The question now is just whether to retain the incorrect title (Municipal...) as a redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, for some reason, I have a block on the name of this org and am not competent to deal with this article's title. Thanks for fixing. Seligne (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia exists as a redirect to Plant Scherer, a power station in Georgia (US state) that is partly owned by an organisation named "Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia". That redirect is not good as they (part) own five power stations [7] and they serve nearly 50 settlements in Georgia. I haven't investigated fully, but I suspect that they are notable enough for an article - if so I'd be very tempted to retarget this to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The term does have the broad sense of "local city utility" rather than the wrong name for another company. Further, if created in error, all the more reason to delete it. Keeping it makes searching for rightly made entities better. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many municipal electricity authorities, it seems, and so although the Thai Metropolitan E. A. is rightly placed in the absence of any other, we don't have to block the search engine with an {{R from incorrect name}} that was just created in errorm (I have done so myself when creating translated articles and just slipped, not saying this one was translated, but I can see how it happens, you have the name of the thing so much in your head you bash it in at the wrong title, kinda hypercorrection). Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Interstate 13 in California

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 26#Interstate 13 in California

Scottish and Irish ale

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. These topics are discussed in different places, at the target section and at Scotch ale. They aren't discussed together, and there's no clear reason why they should be. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish ale and Irish ale aren't the same thing. But neither are Scottish ale and Scotch ale. The Scottish and Irish ale article was originally like this. At 10 years distance I can't exactly recall why I made the move I did, unless at that time I didn't consider that a redirect would be left behind, and I thought I was replacing Scottish and Irish ale with Irish ale. There are two possible ways forward - one is that Scottish and Irish ale is restored to a disambiguation page, or it is deleted. There are so few pageviews (Scottish and Irish ale is such an unlikely search term) that I would support delete, but I wouldn't be averse to a disamb page with the targets being Beer in Scotland, Beer in Ireland. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they were discussed in the same place when you made it. What would be the difference between Scottish and Scotch ale? Is it that Scotch ale is a distinct style, whereas "Scottish ale" would be any ale from Scotland? --BDD (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too vague. For a start you have to kinda define terms of what an ale is, which varies, it used to mean a beer without hops but usually means now a cask-conditioned ale in England and basically just "beer" in scotland and Ireland where everything is keg beer. CAMRA would have a lot to say about this, which is why CAMRA have few branches in Scotland or Ireland, north or south. Essentially Guinness (now part of Diageo) took over the whole lot and started doing crap like Irish Red and a widget (beer) (I actually worked on the then Whitbread counterpart to that to make crap like John Smith's and Smoothflow, essentially a nitrogen canister but you have to get the pressure right so it don't explode in the can but explode when it opens, back in the days when Whitbread had the factory @ndash; er, sorry, brewers – at Luton), and stopped making proper cask conditioned beer. Delete. There are a few breweries in Scotland that make good beer or ale, but that would require a list article. They tend to be less hoppy than English beers, for obvious reasons i.e transport of hops is expenseive, but a beautiful, kinda malty taste with some of the light ales from some of the smaller microbreweries, and I hope the barrels from the Whisky will help them to add a bit of charm. Siangya-va! Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Raymond Chen (Microsoft)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 27#Raymond Chen (Microsoft)

Hit on

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit I was not even aware of the use of "hit on" in the sense of "flirting", and would only have recognised the first two senses here in the area of "have an idea" or "find out". Thus it certainly isn't an unambiguous synonym and probably doesn't need a redirect at all. : Noyster (talk), 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to me much more likely that someone is going to be searching for an article on flirting when typing "hit on" than searching for the concept of having an idea. In the first instance they are using a common alternative term for the name of the article, in the second case they are looking for a dictionary definition, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The term gets an average of four hits a day, so it would be appropriate to keep it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as someone finds it useful instead of general hitting which would not require a redirect for being a common word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common word. It's a common phrasal verb. WP:NOUN, if you please. I know in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, but don't push it. We don't have put on or go over or get under or go through. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do apparently have put on. My success rate so far is three out of four. give over, mind yourself, hang out, hang up, hang to, hang down, hang by, hang fire? Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
put over, put up with, put out, put in, put again, WP:NOTDIC. Geddit? Come to? Come again? Come by? Come over? Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep. Speaking as another Brit: I've known "hit on" meaning "flirt with" (or similar) as a British expression for over 40 years, perhaps you should get out more. Narky Blert (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete. Narky Blert has quite patently demonstrated that "hit on" is a verb, and fails WP:NOUN. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument doesn't work. WP:NOUN is a criterion for article titles, not redirects. There are plenty of redirects that are verbs, and we even have an WP:RCAT dedicated to it, {{R from verb}}. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does work if you believe as I do that since redirect titles are indistinguishable from article titles for a user searching, they should generally follow the same rules. Numerous exceptions, of course, to help people search, but when you type in a title in whatever way you search, you don't know straight away whether it's a redirect or the article proper, so they should if they can follow the same naming conventions. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Primarily used in this sense. Redirects don't have to comply with the article title policy per Tavix. I wouldn't call it a chiefly British expression, as its seemingly rather common in American English as well.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't linked from a lot of places, not sure what it is supposed to mean, there was never a "party" by such name to my knowledge. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There was an (attempted) association by this name at this title but it was nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians by MER-C with the reasoning that it was "redundant with much more well-established pages, especially Wikipedia:Translation" and looking at the deleted history I agree with that assessment. It was speedy deleted, again by MER-C, with the summary "Creator was a sockpuppet and the main contributor has asked me to delete this. I guess so...". The main contributor was user:Orthodoxy, who also created the redirect under discussion here, but they haven't edited since 2007 so we're very unlikely to get their perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to point out: it was User:The Moose that pressed the delete button, not me. MER-C 13:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a failed idea from 2007 that got deleted. I don't remember anything about this. I don't see the harm in keeping OR deleting the redirect. Looks like only two archives link to it, other than this discussion. The Moose is loose! 20:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not used, not likely to be used. — Gorthian (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Thanks to Tavix for the history merge. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • History merge into target, then Delete per nom. There is significant history on this redirect that would prevent straight-out deletion. Pppery 11:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge then delete per Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge and delete. Although it was almost 18 months ago, I've left a note about cutpaste moves with Sturmovik (talk · contribs). If this was recent, with no subsequent edits, I'd simply undo the edits and revert the initial bad move. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I messed up the title when I first saved the page. There is no history worth saving. It should be obvious what happened so please don't go around leaving passive aggressive robo notes on my talk page.Sturmovik (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page was created in error and there was no simple mechanism to delete it. There is nothing in the history that is worth saving because it only had the one entry, which is the same as the one entry in the proper page so nothing is lost from an attribution standpoint. This really shouldn't be a problem.Sturmovik (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename this and recover it as the original main article (see its 2015 history), then delete the one at Intermittent inductive automatic train stop (US) instead, which appears to have been a 2015 copy-paste move. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Without prejudice to this discussion, I have performed a history merge to fix the copy-and-paste move (which should be done regardless of plausibility of the redirect). Now the only history left on the nominated redirect is history subsequent to the copy-and-paste move. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that Tavix has cleaned up the history. — Gorthian (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to @Tavix: for doing the gnoming on this one. Si Trew (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a clear-cut case now. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Google Germany

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22#Google_Spain. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. I doubt that any of those hundreds of hits are getting what they want. — Gorthian (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Delete as per the previous discussion, and at random I checked whether we had Google France, Google Hungary, Google Spain, Google Japan, which we don't, I agree with Gorthian that this is probably leading people up the wrong garten path. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mongolian studies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 26#Mongolian studies

Physical firewall

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Firewall. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "physical" refers to as it won't be physical if it refers to computer software anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Firewall. Physical firewall has referred to both the construction firewall as well as computer hardware firewalls, boxes that exist physically in a room. Other firewalls that are actual objects can be found on the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MER-CIMER-C. A Google Books search shows that this refers nearly exclusively to the current target. A hatnote to the DAB page would work just fine for those using the word in the non-technical sense. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Firewall (computing) needs to be improved to cover this aspect but that's not a reason to delete this redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Firewall. The thing is, in the computing field, it's a dead metaphor, people have forgotten about a "physical" firewall (construction) when the term is pervasive and can be surprised to find there is such a thing as a real firewall to stop real fires spreading in real buildings. The fact that User:Patar knight's Google Books overwhelmingly shows the term being used for computing infrastructure does not really help anything except to prove my point (and shows, I forget what the essay or topic is on WP, but a tendency for WP and the Internet world in general to emphasise computer-related topics etc because people who have computers are the people who edit Wikipedia, and the people who publish books on Google are the people who understand how to publish books on Google, etc: there is plenty of woodware legislation etc on how to build a firewall in your jurisdiction).
My argument is that many people have forgotten or never knew the etymology of the word, why it is called a "firewall" in the first place. That we have "virtual firewall" emphasises that, beause in the real world you actually have to build a wall with noncombustible materials (preferably not asbestos, thanks) and so the metaphorical sense is just now totally detached from the real one. I was initially with User:SilkTork about creating a DAB but the existing one is just fine, R it there. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add salt to the fire, we don't have a computing metaphor for a fire safe (-> Safe#Fire-resistant safes), for example. That seems always to be a physical object that is there to stop fires getting at all your white fivers etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Physical firewall" is a term of art in computing, "fire safe" is not. Readers are served well by the hatnotes.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak retarget to Firewall per AngusWOOF. The concept of "firewall" as described and defined in the current target article is a software medium, which is not a physical medium. The term itself is vague and is probably too ambiguous to refer to any specific alternate item and is also not a spelling and/or punctuation match for the ambiguous page Firewall (my "delete" rationale.) However, as a compromise, some of the entries on the disambiguation page are physical mediums, so that could make some sense, but it wouldn't be my first choice given the scenario (my "weak retarget" rationale.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to why I think "delete" over "retarget" would probably be more helpful: at the present time, there is no section on Firewall dedicated to firewalls as a physical medium. If this redirect were retargeted there, readers would be unclear which subjects in the page are considered "physical" since they were not redirected to a section pointing them to that specific information. To compare this to a redirect that forwards the reader to a section on a disambiguation page where they would find the information they are looking for, see Law violation (err... See what it used to be: it previously targeted a section on Violation named "Law", but it seems that situation was changed back in May by BD2412.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall. Just in this discussion, it's clear how ambiguous this phrase is. I tend to agree with Si; there's a distinct bias towards computer-related stuff on the internet. But my first thought was, of course it means Firewall (construction). Obviously, others don't agree. So let's give searchers a chance to make up their own minds. Deleting wouldn't help; this gets used a good bit. — Gorthian (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall due to the ambiguity and lack of an agreed upon definition above and seemingly in sourcing.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Firewall per the discussion above. The computing meaning of the phrase might be the one that shows up most often in reliable sources, but the reason is probably that the other firewalls are inherently physical and don't need to be explicitly specified as such in sources. And to address Steel1643's observation that there isn't a relevant section in the dab page: any of the four items listed in the "lede" section are relevant: "physical firewall" can be a synonym for the first two, a subtopic of the third one, or a vaguely plausible incorrect name for the fourth one (at least for me: I'm not careful with my English and I can easily confuse a physics firewall with a physical one). Still, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate dab. Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_19&oldid=1142586947"